Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited

"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:bad51823-6460-48db-8732-0d2a487ce34c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 21, 4:21 pm, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 20, 11:13 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





> On Jun 20, 9:18 am, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > On Jun 19, 5:58 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> > >news:3316ab13-8dfb-45ea-9940-d67bfe6fb1b9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > > > On Jun 19, 11:47 am, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> > > >>news:3823cbdf-57a9-475a-91c6-47f17d610537@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > > >> > On Jun 19, 9:32 am, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> >> <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> > > >> >>news:7bc938ee-a338-460d-bec0-8d2de8eec1c8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > > >> >> > On Jun 18, 8:53 pm, "Dono." <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> On Jun 18, 1:43 pm, "kensh...@xxxxxxxxxx" > > > >> >> >> <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> > one-way isotropy does not mean one-way value of the > > > >> >> >> > speed of
> > > >> >> >> > light has the same values at different distance. I You > > > >> >> >> > can have
> > > >> >> >> > 200000
> > > >> >> >> > km/sec isotropy or 300000 km isotropy.
> > > >> >> >> > Ken Seto
> > > >> >> >> Ken Shito
> > > >> >> >> What does OWLS isotropy mean if you already know that
> > > >> >> >> TWLS=300,000km/
> > > >> >> >> s?
> > > >> >> > Hey ***-head....it means nothing until you perform the > > > >> >> > OWLS
> > > >> >> > measurement directly.

> > > >> >> Well, it has meaning .. it means the speed of light is > > > >> >> independent of
> > > >> >> direction.

> > > >> > But it does not mean that OWLS has the same value when the two
> > > >> > synchronized clocks are separated at different distances. > > > >> > That's the
> > > >> > reason why physicists refused to do any direct OWLS > > > >> > measurement.

> > > >> No physicist (other than youself if we extend the term to > > > >> include you)
> > > >> thinks that

> > > > You can bring the clocks back by the conveying screws and if they > > > > show
> > > > the same elapsed time then they were synchroneous when they were
> > > > apart.

> > > That proves nothing.

> > It proved that the clocks were running at the same rate when they
> > were apart. If they were running at different rates then the
> > accumulated clock seconds for both clocks should be different.

> > >If moving them apart makes them go out of sync,

> > Clearly you don't understand SR and LET. Both Sr and LET say that
> > moving the clocks apart in the opposite directions with the same
> > velocity the clocks will remain synchronize.

> Clearly you don't understand SR or LET. According to the Hafele–
> Keating experiment SR predicts that a clock moved eastward will lose
> time while a clock moved westward will gain time. Their experiment
> confirmed this.

No idiot it is you who don't understand SR and LET. According to SR
two side by side and synched clocks moving with the same velocity in
the opposite directions and come to a stop simultaneously at equal
distance from the original point....these two clocks will remain
synchronous.
The Hafele-Keating experiment involved two continuously moving clocks.
They are moving with different individual velocities (due to the
earth's rotation) and that's why they are accumultrating different
clock seconds when that are re-united.

Ken Seto







>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

> "The published outcome of the experiment was consistent with special
> relativity, and the observed time gains and losses were reportedly
> different from zero to a high degree of confidence."

> > > rreturning them can restore the sync.

> > Again you demonstrated your naive understanding of Sr and LET.

> > > You need to determine that they are
> > > still in sync when apart. How would you do that? What does 'in > > > sync' mean
> > > to you for remote clocks?

> > They are in synch when both clock accumulate clock seconds at the > > same
> > rate while they were apart.

> Considering the clocks in the Hafele–Keating experiment were out of
> sync when they were brought back together it's a safe bet that they
> were out of sync when apart.

Hey idiot.... the Hafele-Keating clocks were moving continuously at
different individual velocities. The clocks in my experiements are
stopped simultaneously after moving apart slowly. That means that they
are at rest in the same frame after they were moved.

Ken Seto


The Hafele-Keating experiment says that clocks transported east and
west tick at different rates because the velocity of there move is
added or subtracted from the velocity of the earth's surface relative
to the earth centered inertial system. If you are conducting your
experiment on the earth's surface the same thing applies. Your clocks
will have different velocities in the earth centered inertial system
and will tick at different rates.

But what if we are not doing the experiment in that inertial frame? And doing it in terms of the non-inertial (but not far off it :) frame of a lab on the earth (as we do with most experiments we perform on earth)? How significant would that effect be? And would it be more or less significant if we move the clocks quickly in opposite directions? I don't fancy doing the math :):)





.

Loading